General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

A T
The Alternative View
comments

Comments by "A T" (@AT-bq1kg) on "The Alternative View" channel.

Previous
3
Next
...
All

@bettyswunghole3310 What is the border controls jobs? Whatever you tell them their job is? And if they don't do it according to the way you want then it's justified to incite violence? And you wonder why the politicians don't listen to you?
1
@AquariusGate You haven't listened to the entire footage from the court room. This is the clip that has gone viral around the far right media as confirmation for long held unexamined biases that we are somehow a communist state now. Nothing could be further from the truth
1
@AquariusGate Then go learn what confirmation bias is. If you're willing to understand how your brain works and you're willing to grow you won't be fooled by this stuff anymore. It's misinformation
1
@AquariusGate You're right. I got him mixed up with the other yobbo. He told people that they should damage a hotel with migrants in it. That is a criminal offence and it was right he was sentenced to prison
1
@AquariusGate The guy also has previous. So not exactly an upstanding member of society.
1
@AquariusGate Judges are allowed to hand out severe sentences during a riot. It's a method to deter people from participating. The judge did the right thing and if it were your property you would probably want a harsher sentence imposed.
1
@AquariusGate Rioting and encouraging people to riot ruins peoples lives. Imagine your business being burned down by racist yobs. We criminalised racism back in the 60's so it's not like Parlour wasn't aware of what he was doing.
1
@labouraredangerous Ok, name a better one. Give me the advantages your preferred justice system has over the UK's? Lets discuss it
1
@labouraredangerous Russia jail's people for inceitmement to violence and hate speech. United States, Germany, France, India, Australia and the Middle East are just a very few of the countries have strict laws against increment to violence and hate speech. Russia is especially strict. Most countries in the world have laws prohibiting incitement and hate speech. Granted there are countries in the world who's laws are vague Somalia South Sudan Libiya Yemen Central African Republic.
1
@labouraredangerous If you don't believe in laws prohibiting incitement or secretly want to incite violence or believe you should have the freedom to incite violence or at least live in a country where you may get away with it then take your pick of the above countries and go live there. Do can do an exchange. You can go live there and one of the people suffering there who wants to escape to the UK can take your place.
1
@labouraredangerous Can you tell me what fascism is please? I'd like to understand your take on it and what you learned about fascism.
1
"Sensible debate" 😂 Thats rich
1
No, telling people to burn down a hotel with migrants inside it is a crime, which is exactly what the man got sentenced for. Maybe stop being so gullible and notice when segments of the whole video are taken out of context.
1
@carpetsonline3718 Yes he did. Whether you do it online or you're there in person makes no difference
1
@carpetsonline3718 Hea did. Online
1
@carpetsonline3718 It's better to change your beliefs to align with reality than expect reality to conform to your beliefs. This means get a basic education and you will stay out of trouble
1
@Fathervinyard The absolute state of you. Say something stupid and as long as you get five or six strangers online who agree with you that's all you need 😂 Well done 👍
1
Not really. Because if the demand wasn't there the Africans would not have been incentivised to capture and sell slaves. This was only a small part of the problem. The majority were stolen through coercion and violence. If it were true that Africans drove the slave trade they would have developed Africa with it.
1
Economic justice and socialism are related concepts but are not the same. Economic justice refers to the idea that all individuals should have fair access to economic resources and opportunities, aiming to reduce inequality and ensure that everyone can meet their basic needs. This can include a variety of policies and practices, such as living wages, equitable access to education, healthcare, and fair labor practices. Socialism, on the other hand, is a political and economic system that advocates for the collective or governmental ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Socialism aims to reduce or eliminate the disparities in wealth and power that can arise in capitalist systems. While economic justice can be pursued within various political and economic frameworks, including capitalism, socialism explicitly seeks to address these issues through systemic change. Thus, while they may overlap in goals—such as reducing inequality—economic justice does not necessarily equate to socialism.
1
@sharonreichter2537 Ok, so you are happy with the status quo. Things are pretty bad for the working classes at the moment, but seeing as you don't believe in fairness you won't want to level the playing field to improve your situation. Stay poor then.
1
@sharonreichter2537 The statement made by @sharonreichter2537 presents a strong opinion about equality, but it may contain some fallacies or weaknesses in reasoning: 1. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "there is no such thing as 'equality'" is a broad assertion that may overlook instances of equality achieved in various contexts, such as legal rights, access to education, or social justice movements. 2. Appeal to Futility: The phrase "Trying to make it so is a waste of time" implies that efforts toward equality are futile without providing evidence or reasoning to support that claim. This can discourage constructive dialogue and action. 3. False Dichotomy: The statement suggests an all-or-nothing perspective on equality, ignoring the possibility of varying degrees or forms of equality that can be pursued and achieved. 4. Ambiguity: The term "equality" itself can have multiple meanings, including social, economic, or political equality. Without clarifying what type of equality is being referred to, the argument may lack precision. 5. Negativity Bias: The overall tone of the statement focuses solely on the challenges of achieving equality, potentially neglecting positive developments or progress made in that area.
1
@sharonreichter2537 The statement by @sharonreichter2537 presents several points that can be examined for logical fallacies or weaknesses in reasoning: 1. Straw Man: The assertion that someone believes in "magic equality" misrepresents the concept of equality. Most arguments in favor of equality advocate for equal opportunities rather than an unrealistic notion of uniformity in abilities or qualities. 2. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "trying to level everyone out just doesn't work" generalizes the idea of equality without considering different models or the nuances of how equality can be approached in various contexts. 3. Slippery Slope: The argument implies that any effort to support equality will inevitably lead to a socialist outcome, which oversimplifies the complexities of political and social systems. 4. Appeal to Tradition: The statement suggests that because a "socialist view has never worked," this serves as proof against efforts toward equality. This overlooks contemporary examples and discussions about varying degrees of social support and equality in different systems. 5. Ambiguity: Terms like "support people where they need it" are vague and could benefit from clarification. It's unclear what specific support is being referred to, and how it relates to the broader discussion on equality. 6. Negativity Bias: The comment emphasizes the failures of the government without acknowledging any positive efforts that may exist or recognizing the complexity of the issues surrounding social support. Your position is totally illogical
1
@sharonreichter2537 You misunderstand what equality means.
1
@sharonreichter2537 It's not about making people succeed either. As I said, you don't understand any of it. You're in the dark about the things you're pretending to critique
1
@sharonreichter2537 Ok. Would you even accept it anyway? Happy to tell you how you're wrong, but would you even listen?
1
@sharonreichter2537 Your first comment, what on earth are you talking about? 😂
1
@sharonreichter2537 Your second comment. What on Earth are you talking about? 😂
1
@sharonreichter2537 Why would I be happy to see farmland covered in solar panels and concrete? Where did this come from? Did you internalise this just from watching this video? 😂
1
Labour are not a far left party. They are constantly ciriticised by people on the left as not being left wing enough
1
@garyb455 Why would they vote only Labour? I thought before the election Labour and Conservative were the "uni party" all working with globalist policies? Now they aren't all of a sudden? 😂
1
@niqash5314 Looks like you got it all figured out just like all of the other 3467 totally different conspiracy theories around 😂
1
@niqash5314 No that's another conspiracy theory 😂 Do you want to know who many conspiracy theories are true? Zero That's because conspiracy theory is not a bona fide way to understand reality. Conspiracy theories are inherently riddled with logical fallacies. Cherry picking, confirmation bias, slippery slope, and hominem, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, false dilemma, post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a naive way of looking at the world. Yes there are conspiracies happening all the time, but conspiracy theories are not the way they are discovered.
1
Because 70-80% when processed are found to be genuine asylum seekers. Legally they are all asylum seekers until they are found not to be. That's why nobody is doing anything about it or should they
1
6:15 There are no unfair systems that give white people special privellages. If there was we would not have any black or brown or asian people in positions of power or authority, there would actually be no "coconuts" to speak of because if it were true that we lived in a system that gave white people special privileges there would be no "coconuts" because all of those jobs would go to actual white people 😂 The reason there are fewer people of colour in top positions is because were a predominantly white country and i hate to say this but a lot of coloured people dont aspire to be in high positions either, but the ones who do, the ones who are competative rise to the top. Whats the problem?
1
He posted a message on FB telling people to burn down a hotel with migrants inside it. What kind of person is your milk man if he says things like that?
1
"sheer" not "shear"
1
The guy told people to burn down a hotel with migrants inside it.
1
Most of this channel is lies. Not intentional, just idiocy
1
@stuartannetts300 So? What is your problem now with genuine asylum cases? Is this about pure racism masquerading as "concern for undocumented illegal migrants roaming our streets"? Seems like you are changing the goalposts. What actually IS your grievance?
1
@stuartannetts300 The criteria for genuine asylum seekers in the UK are primarily established by international law, national legislation, and government policy: Fear of Persecution: Asylum seekers must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. This persecution must be based on specific grounds such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Credibility: Applicants must provide credible evidence that supports their claims of persecution. This can include personal testimonies, witness statements, and evidence from human rights organisations. Safety in Home Country: Asylum seekers must show that they cannot return to their home country due to the risk of persecution. They may also need to demonstrate that there are no safe areas within their country. Non-Protection by Home Government: The individual must prove that their home government is either involved in the persecution or unable to provide protection against it. Filing for Asylum: Asylum seekers must apply for asylum within a reasonable time frame after arriving in the UK, typically as soon as possible. The criteria are set by the UK government in alignment with international conventions, notably the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
1
@stuartannetts300 If you're implying that the criteria for determining genuine asylum cases are manipulated or biased by a specific group or authority for ulterior motives, you may be committing the "conspiracy theory" fallacy. This fallacy involves assuming that events or situations are the result of secretive and malevolent plots, often without substantial evidence to support such claims. In this context, you could also have committed the "ad hominem" fallacy if you are questioning the motives or integrity of those setting the criteria rather than addressing the actual criteria or processes themselves. Simply raising the question is not an argument.
1
@j606ywt If your second language is English it makes sense to come here because you won't have to learn another language. Learning a language can take years and opportunities are slim when you don't speak the native language as an immigrant. I should know, I have experience of this first hand. I empathise with those wanting to seek asylum here instead of France. Plus the acceptance rate is higher in the UK. Source UK home office.
1
@iainadam1005 How can you not give asylum seekers benefits? What are we supposed to do? Ask them to get a job and secure accommodation? Their basic needs are looked after, I can't imagine sharing a room in a hotel is too comfortable
1
@stuartannetts300 Without substantial evidence and formulating a theory without the use of logical fallacies I'm afraid it is yes
1
@j606ywt We have a foreign aid budget. I don't know the answer to any of those questions. It's all on a case by case basis. I could look up the stats but surely by now you have learned to do that yourself? I have given you the tools.
1
@j606ywt The impact of asylum seekers on the UK economy is a complex and nuanced topic, and opinions on it can vary widely. Economic Contribution: Many studies suggest that asylum seekers can contribute positively to the economy. They often take on jobs in sectors where there are labor shortages, contributing to economic growth and filling gaps in the workforce. Costs of Support: While there are costs associated with providing support and services to asylum seekers, such as housing, healthcare, and legal assistance, these expenses are often balanced by the economic contributions they make over time. Long-Term Integration: Successful integration of asylum seekers into society can lead to long-term economic benefits. When asylum seekers are allowed to work, they can contribute taxes and stimulate local economies. Public Perception: The perception that asylum seekers are a burden on the economy can be influenced by political discourse and media representation. It's important to differentiate between factual economic analysis and public sentiment. Policy Considerations: Government policies on immigration and asylum can significantly affect the economic impact of asylum seekers. Supportive policies that facilitate integration can enhance their contributions to the economy. In summary, while there are costs associated with asylum seekers, many experts argue that they can also provide significant benefits to the economy, particularly when integrated effectively. The overall impact is influenced by various factors, including government policies and public attitudes.
1
@j606ywt The effects of asylum seekers on the UK economy are a complex issue, and views on it can differ significantly. Here are some important points to consider: Economic Contribution: Research indicates that asylum seekers can have a positive impact on the economy. They often fill jobs in areas experiencing labor shortages, which can help boost economic growth. Support Costs: While there are expenses related to providing support and services to asylum seekers, such as housing and healthcare, these costs are often offset by their economic contributions over time. Long-Term Benefits: When asylum seekers are successfully integrated into society, they can provide long-term economic advantages. Allowing them to work can lead to tax contributions and stimulate local economies. Public Perception: The belief that asylum seekers negatively affect the economy can be shaped by political discussions and media narratives. It's crucial to distinguish between factual economic insights and public opinion. Government Policies: The economic impact of asylum seekers can be significantly influenced by government immigration and asylum policies. Supportive measures that promote integration can enhance their contributions to the economy. In summary, while there are costs associated with supporting asylum seekers, many experts suggest that they can also bring considerable benefits to the economy, especially when integrated effectively. The overall impact depends on various factors, including government policies and societal attitudes.
1
@j606ywt Internet. Home office website. Use AI. These are good tools
1
@j606ywt The statement that "apologists like yourself will happily see the UK economy tank" contains a couple of logical fallacies: Ad Hominem Fallacy: This occurs when someone attacks the character or motives of the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. By labeling you as an "apologist," the speaker is attempting to undermine your position based on an assumption about your character or intentions rather than engaging with the substance of your views. Straw Man Fallacy: This fallacy involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying someone's argument to make it easier to attack. The claim implies that those who support asylum seekers or related policies do so without regard for the economy, which may not accurately represent the nuanced positions that individuals may hold. Together, these fallacies detract from a constructive discussion about the complexities of asylum policies and their economic implications.
1
@j606ywt The statement "There's a reason they're heading here, and it's not any of the reasons you mentioned" primarily exhibits the No True Scotsman Fallacy. This fallacy is characterised by dismissing the validity of the reasons provided by the other person by asserting that they do not count as legitimate reasons. Instead of engaging with those reasons, the speaker implies that there is a different, unspecified reason that is more valid, without offering any evidence or explanation for it.
1

Previous
3
Next
...
All